DOCSLIB.ORG

U-Boat Campaign (World War I) 1 U-Boat Campaign (World War I)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U-Boat Campaign (World War I) 1 U-Boat Campaign (World War I) U-boat Campaign (World War I) 1 U-boat Campaign (World War I) The U-boat Campaign from 1914 to 1918 was the World War I naval campaign fought by German U-boats against the trade routes of the Entente Powers. It took place largely in the seas around the British Isles and in the Mediterranean. The German Empire relied on imports for food and domestic food production (especially fertilizer) and the United Kingdom relied heavily on imports to feed its population, and both required raw materials to supply their war industry; the powers aimed, therefore, to blockade one another. The British had the Royal Navy which was superior in numbers and could operate on most of the world's oceans because of the British Empire, whereas the German Kaiserliche Marine surface fleet was mainly restricted to the German Bight, and used commerce raiders and unrestricted submarine warfare to operate elsewhere. The successful blockade of Germany contributed to its military defeat in 1918, and, still in effect, enforced the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in mid-1919. 1914: Initial campaign North Sea: Initial stage In August 1914, a flotilla of ten U-boats sailed from their base in Heligoland to attack Royal Navy warships in the North Sea in the first submarine war patrol in history.[1] Their aim was to sink capital ships of the British Grand Fleet, and so reduce the Grand Fleet's numerical superiority over the German High Seas Fleet. The first sortie was not a success. Only one attack was carried out, when U-15 fired a torpedo (which missed) at HMS Monarch. Two of the ten U-boats were lost. German U-boat U 14 Later in the month, the U-boats achieved success, when U-21 sank the cruiser HMS Pathfinder. In September, U-9 sank three armored cruisers (Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy) in a single action. Other successes followed. In October U-9 sank the cruiser Hawke, and on the last day of the year U-24 sank the "pre-dreadnought" battleship HMS Formidable. By the end of the initial campaign the U-boats had sunk nine warships while losing five of their own number.[2] Mediterranean: Initial stage The initial phase of the U-boat campaign in the Mediterranean comprised the actions by the Austro-Hungarian Navy (KuK)'s U-boat force against the French, who were blockading the Straits of Otranto. At the start of hostilities the KuK had seven U-boats in commission; 5 operational, 2 training; all were of the coastal type, with limited range and endurance, suitable for operation in the Adriatic. Nevertheless they had a number of successes. On 21 December 1914 U-12 torpedoed dreadnought Jean Bart, causing her to retire, and on 27 April 1915 U-5 sank cruiser Léon Gambetta, with a heavy loss of life. But the KuK boats were unable to offer any interference to allied traffic in the Mediterranean beyond the Straits of Otranto. U-boat Campaign (World War I) 2 Submarine warfare In 1914 the U-boat's chief advantage was to submerge; surface ships had no means to detect a submarine underwater, and no means to attack even if they could, while in the torpedo the U-boat had a weapon that could sink an armoured warship with one shot. Its disadvantages were less obvious, but became apparent during the campaign. While submerged the U-boat was virtually blind and immobile; boats of this era had limited underwater speed and endurance, so needed to be in position before an attack took place, while even on the surface their speed (around 15 knots) was less than the cruising speed of most warships and two thirds that of the most modern dreadnoughts.[3] The U-boats scored a number of impressive successes, and were able to drive the Grand Fleet from its base in search of a safe anchorage, but the German Navy was unable to erode the Grand Fleet's advantage as hoped. Also, in the two main surface actions of this period the U-boat was unable to have any effect; the High Seas Fleet was unable to draw the Grand Fleet into a U-boat trap. Whilst warships were travelling at speed and on an erratic zigzag course they were relatively safe, and for the remainder of the war the U-boats were unable to mount a successful attack on a warship travelling in this manner. First attacks on merchant ships The first attacks on merchant ships had started in October 1914. At that time there was no plan for a concerted U-boat offensive against Allied trade. It was recognized the U-boat had several drawbacks as a commerce raider, and such a campaign risked alienating neutral opinion. In the six months to the opening of the commerce war in February 1915, U-boats had sunk 19 ships, totalling 43000 GRT.[4] 1915: War on commerce The British steamer Andex sinking after being torpedoed by a U-boat U-boat Campaign (World War I) 3 Unrestricted submarine warfare By early 1915, all the combatants had lost the illusion that the war could be won quickly, and began to consider harsher measures in order to gain an advantage. The British, with their overwhelming sea power, had established a naval blockade of Germany immediately on the outbreak of war in August 1914, and in early November 1914 declared it to be a War Zone, with any ships entering the North Sea doing so at their own risk.[5] The blockade was unusually restrictive in that even foodstuffs were considered "contraband of war". The Germans regarded this as a blatant attempt to starve the German people into submission and wanted to retaliate in kind, and in fact the severity of the British blockade did not go over well in America, either. Germany could not possibly deal with British naval strength on an even basis, and the only possible way Germany could impose a blockade on Britain was through the U-boat. The German Chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, felt that such a submarine blockade, based on "shoot without warning", would antagonise the United States and other neutrals. However, he was Shaded area shows "War Zone" announced by unable to hold back the pressures for taking such a step. Germany on 4 February 1915 In response to the British declaration in November 1914 that the entire North Sea was now a War Zone, on 4 February 1915 Admiral Hugo von Pohl, commander of the German High Seas Fleet, published a warning in the Deutscher Reichsanzeiger (Imperial German Gazette): (1) The waters around Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel, are hereby declared to be a War Zone. From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel encountered in this zone will be destroyed, nor will it always be possible to avert the danger thereby threatened to the crew and passengers. (2) Neutral vessels also will run a risk in the War Zone, because in view of the hazards of sea warfare and the British authorization of January 31 of the misuse of neutral flags, it may not always be possible to prevent attacks on enemy ships from harming neutral ships.[6] In time, this would bring non-European nations (such as Brazil and the United States) into the war. The German U-boat force was now primarily based at Ostend in Belgium, giving the submarines better access to the sea lanes around England. The Germans made use of this advantage, sending out about 20 U-boats to begin the naval blockade. In January, before the declaration of "unrestricted submarine warfare" as the submarine blockade was called, 43,550 tonnes of shipping had been sunk by U-boats. The number of sinkings then steadily increased, with 168,200 tonnes going down in August. Attacking without warning, German U-Boats sank nearly 100,000 GRT per month, an average of 1.9 ships daily.[6] On 10 April 1915 the British steamer Harpalyce, a Belgian relief ship and clearly marked as such, was torpedoed without warning by UB-4 near the North Hinder lightship, just outside the strip of sea declared safe by von Pohl. The ship had been en route for America to collect food for starving Belgians, and its sinking outraged American citizens already unhappy at the death of Leon C. Thrasher, drowned when the SS Falaba was sunk on 28 March 1915 by U-28 (Thrasher incident).[7] U-boat Campaign (World War I) 4 RMS Lusitania On 7 May 1915, the liner RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by U-20, 13 mi (21 km) off the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland, and sank in just 18 minutes. Of the 1,959 people aboard, 1,198 were killed, 128 of them US citizens. Following the incident, the German government attempted to justify it with a range of arguments, which are still debated today; nevertheless there was massive outrage in Britain and America, and the British felt that the Americans had to declare war on Germany. However, US President Woodrow Wilson refused to over-react, though the massive loss of life caused by the sinking of Lusitania required a definitive response from the US. When Germany began its submarine campaign against Britain, Wilson had warned that the US would hold the German government strictly accountable for any violations of American rights. Backed by State Department second-in-command Robert Lansing, Wilson made his position clear in three notes to the German government issued on 13 May, 9 June, and 21 July. The first note affirmed the right of Americans to travel as passengers on merchant ships and called for the Germans to abandon submarine warfare against commercial vessels, whatever flag they sailed under.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Os Navios Capitais E a Grande Guerra
    Semana de Kiel – 1914 OS NAVIOS CAPITAIS E A GRANDE GUERRA Capitão-de-Mar-e-Guerra (Ref.) William Carmo Cesar1 KIEL, JUNHO DE 1914 Hase2, Oficial designado para acompanhar o Coman- dante da força inglesa, Vice-Almirante George Warren- Eram quase nove horas da manhã do dia 23 de ju- der (1860-1917), durante a escala de suas belonaves nho de 1914, no porto de Kiel, quando espessas nu- naquele porto alemão do Báltico. Junto com o adido vens de fumaça denunciaram a aproximação de uma naval inglês, a bordo de uma pequena vedeta a vapor força naval, alinhada em duas colunas, a da esquerda que os conduziria ao navio capitânia, von Hase assistiu com quatro encouraçados e a da direita, um pouco à chegada dos dreadnoughts da 2ª Esquadra de Linha, mais atrás, com três cruzadores menores. os HMS “King George V” (capitânia), HMS “Ajax”, HMS “Audacious” e HMS “Centurion”, e dos navios “Os encouraçados ingleses, que mostravam um as- da 1ª Esquadra de Cruzadores, os HMS “Southamp- pecto imponente, com sua cor cinza-escuro aparentando ton”, HMS “Birmingham” e HMS “Nottingham”. quase preta diante das nuvens acinzentadas, avançavam Ao longo de toda a Semana de Kiel, von Hase ficou ameaçadoramente; eram os maiores navio de guerra do hospedado no capitânia inglês, às ordens do Almiran- mundo”, registraria o Capitão-de-Corveta Georg von 2 HASE, Georg von. La Bataille du Jutland vue du “Derfflinger”. 1 Doutor em Ciências Navais pela Escola de Guerra Naval. Paris: Payot, 1927, p.152. 32 REVISTA DE VILLEGAGNON . 2014 te Warrender. Durante esse período, conviveu cotidia- seria transformada em um modelo padrão de encou- namente com a Oficialidade inglesa e acompanhou o raçado mundial.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922
    Cover: During World War I, convoys carried almost two million men to Europe. In this 1920 oil painting “A Fast Convoy” by Burnell Poole, the destroyer USS Allen (DD-66) is shown escorting USS Leviathan (SP-1326). Throughout the course of the war, Leviathan transported more than 98,000 troops. Naval History and Heritage Command 1 United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922 Frank A. Blazich Jr., PhD Naval History and Heritage Command Introduction This document is intended to provide readers with a chronological progression of the activities of the United States Navy and its involvement with World War I as an outside observer, active participant, and victor engaged in the war’s lingering effects in the postwar period. The document is not a comprehensive timeline of every action, policy decision, or ship movement. What is provided is a glimpse into how the 20th century’s first global conflict influenced the Navy and its evolution throughout the conflict and the immediate aftermath. The source base is predominately composed of the published records of the Navy and the primary materials gathered under the supervision of Captain Dudley Knox in the Historical Section in the Office of Naval Records and Library. A thorough chronology remains to be written on the Navy’s actions in regard to World War I. The nationality of all vessels, unless otherwise listed, is the United States. All errors and omissions are solely those of the author. Table of Contents 1914..................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Shipbuilding Expansion: the World War II Surface Combatant Experience
    Naval Shipbuilding Expansion: The World War II Surface Combatant Experience Dr. Norbert Doerry and Dr. Philip Koenig Naval Sea Systems Command David W. Taylor Lecture Series Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division June 13, 2019 From material originally presented at: SNAME Maritime Convention 2018, Providence, RI, Oct 24-26, 2018 and 16th Annual Acquisition Research Symposium, Monterey, CA, 8-9 May 2019 10/24/2018 Statement A: Approved for Release. Distribution is Unlimited. 1 Introduction • The post-Cold War “Peace Dividend” era is over • “Overt challenges to the free and open international order and the re-emergence of long- term, strategic competition between nations.” (DoD 2018) • Possibility of non-nuclear, industrial-scale war has re-emerged. What can we learn from the last time we engaged in industrial-scale war? 10/24/2018 Statement A: Approved for Release. Distribution is Unlimited. 2 U.S. Destroyer Acquisition Eras World War I Era (up to 1922) • 68 destroyers commissioned prior to U.S. entry into WW I — One would serve in WW II • 273 “Flush-Deckers” acquired in response to U.S. entry into WW I — 41 commissioned prior to end of hostilities — The rest were commissioned after WW I — 105 lost or scrapped prior to WW II, remainder served in WWII Treaty Period (1922-1936) USS Fletcher (DD 445) underway off New York, 18 July 1942 • Limitations placed on displacement, weapons, and number (www.history.navy.mil – 19-N-31245) • Torpedo tubes and 5 inch guns were the primary weapon systems • 61 destroyers in seven classes procured Pre-War (1936-1941) • Designs modified to reflect experiences of foreign navies in combat — Lend-Lease prepared industry for production ramp-up • 182 destroyers in four classes authorized • 39 in commission upon U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Commonwealth and Allied Naval Forces' Operation with the Anti
    THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND ALLIED NAVAL FORCES’ OPERATION WITH THE ANTI-COMMUNIST GUERRILLAS IN THE KOREAN WAR: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE OPERATION ON THE WEST COAST By INSEUNG KIM A dissertation submitted to The University of Birmingham For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham May 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis examines the British Commonwealth and Allied Naval forces operation on the west coast during the final two and a half years of the Korean War, particularly focused on their co- operation with the anti-Communist guerrillas. The purpose of this study is to present a more realistic picture of the United Nations (UN) naval forces operation in the west, which has been largely neglected, by analysing their activities in relation to the large number of irregular forces. This thesis shows that, even though it was often difficult and frustrating, working with the irregular groups was both strategically and operationally essential to the conduct of the war, and this naval-guerrilla relationship was of major importance during the latter part of the naval campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I: the War to End All Wars and the Birth of a Handicapped International Criminal Justice System
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 30 Number 3 Summer Article 3 May 2020 World War I: The War to End All Wars and the Birth of a Handicapped International Criminal Justice System M. Cherif Bassiouni Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation M. Cherif Bassiouni, World War I: The War to End All Wars and the Birth of a Handicapped International Criminal Justice System, 30 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 244 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. WORLD WAR I: "THE WAR TO END ALL WARS"AND THE BIRTH OF A HANDICAPPED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI* "Strategy is a system of stop-gaps." -Moltke' INTRODUCTION The words of Von Moltke, Germany's well-known general, are an apt prelude to the strategy of justice pursued by the Allies after World War I. It was, indeed, a "system of stop-gaps." World War I, commonly referred to as the "Great War" and "the war to end all wars," took place between 1914 and 1918 and "was the first general war, involving all the Great Powers of the day, to be fought out in the modem, industrialized world."2 The trigger for the war was an incident that occurred in the volatile Balkans 3 on June 28, 1914, in which Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip as they rode in a car in Sarajevo.4 The " Professor of Law, President, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University College of Law; President, International Association of Penal Law; President, International Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Im Ersten Weltkrieg
    ÖSTERREICHISCHEÖMZ MILITÄRISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT In dieser Onlineausgabe Harald Pöcher Japan im Ersten Weltkrieg Nikolaus Scholik Power-Projection vs Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD) Die operationellen Konzepte von U.S. Navy (USN) und Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) im Indo-Pazifischen Raum Andreas Armborst Dschihadismus im Irak Andreas Steiger Die Berufsoffiziersausbildung an der Theresianischen Militärakademie in Wr. Neustadt Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bundesheeres der 1. Republik von 1934-1938 Zusätzlich in der Printausgabe Walter Schilling Die Problematik der pazifistischen Grundströmung in Deutschland Hans Krech Die direkte Einflussnahme der strategischen Führungsebene von Al Qaida auf interne Konflikte in den Regionalorganisationen Heino Matzken Zwist statt Liebe in der Geburtskirche Ewiger christlicher Zankapfel auch Spielball im palästinensisch-israelischen Staatspoker! Klaus-Jürgen Bremm Die elektrische Telegraphie als Mittel militärischer Führung und der Nachrichtengewinnung in den deutschen Einigungskriegen sowie zahlreiche Berichte zur österreichischen und internationalen Verteidigungspolitik ÖMZ 4/2014-Online ÖMZ itärisc Mil he Z e ei h ts sc c i h h r Japan im Ersten Weltkrieg c i i f e t r r e t s Ö w Peer Revie Harald Pöcher 1808 er japanische Beitrag zum Ersten Weltkrieg Nation-starke Armee). Unmittelbar nach der Öffnung des führte zu einer Neugestaltung des westpazi- Landes gaben sich die ausländischen Militärdelegationen - Dfisch-ostasiatischen Raumes und schuf damit auch in der Hoffnung auf gute Geschäfte für ihre Rüstungs-
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • The Axis and Allied Maritime Operations Around Southern Africa, 1939-1945
    THE AXIS AND ALLIED MARITIME OPERATIONS AROUND SOUTHERN AFRICA, 1939-1945 Evert Philippus Kleynhans Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Military Science (Military History) in the Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof I.J. van der Waag Co-supervisor: Dr E.K. Fedorowich December 2018 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za DECLARATION By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: December 2018 Copyright © 2018 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract The majority of academic and popular studies on the South African participation in the Second World War historically focus on the military operations of the Union Defence Force in East Africa, North Africa, Madagascar and Italy. Recently, there has been a renewed drive to study the South African participation from a more general war and society approach. The South African home front during the war, and in particular the Axis and Allied maritime war waged off the southern African coast, has, however, received scant historical attention from professional and amateur historians alike. The historical interrelated aspects of maritime insecurity evident in southern Africa during the war are largely cast aside by contemporary academics engaging with issues of maritime strategy and insecurity in southern Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diplomatic Battle for the United States, 1914-1917
    ACQUIRING AMERICA: THE DIPLOMATIC BATTLE FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1914-1917 Presented to The Division of History The University of Sheffield Fulfilment of the requirements for PhD by Justin Quinn Olmstead January 2013 Table of Contents Introduction 1: Pre-War Diplomacy 29 A Latent Animosity: German-American Relations 33 Britain and the U.S.: The Intimacy of Attraction and Repulsion 38 Rapprochement a la Kaiser Wilhelm 11 45 The Set Up 52 Advancing British Interests 55 Conclusion 59 2: The United States and Britain's Blockade 63 Neutrality and the Declaration of London 65 The Order in Council of 20 August 1914 73 Freedom of the Seas 83 Conclusion 92 3: The Diplomacy of U-Boat Warfare 94 The Chancellor's Challenge 96 The Chancellor's Decision 99 The President's Protest 111 The Belligerent's Responses 116 First Contact: The Impact of U-Boat Warfare 119 Conclusion 134 4: Diplomatic Acquisition via Mexico 137 Entering the Fray 140 Punitive Measures 145 Zimmerman's Gamble 155 Conclusion 159 5: The Peace Option 163 Posturing for Peace: 1914-1915 169 The House-Grey Memorandum 183 The German Peace Offer of 1916 193 Conclusion 197 6: Conclusion 200 Bibliography 227 Introduction Shortly after war was declared in August 1914 the undisputed leaders of each alliance, Great Britain and Gennany, found they were unable to win the war outright and began searching for further means to secure victory; the fonnation of a blockade, the use of submarines, attacking the flanks (Allied attacks in the Balkans and Baltic), Gennan Zeppelin bombardment of British coastal towns, and the diplomatic search for additional allies in an attempt to break the stalemate that had ensued soon after fighting had commenced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Naval Aviation in Modern Japan
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE A Battle against Tradition: The Rise of Naval Aviation in Modern Japan Jens Sagen Foreword The maritime victory off Tsushima in May 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War was a milestone in modern naval history. The victory marked the beginning of a new era for the Imperial Japanese Navy. It also manifested a theory among officers all over the World of large vessels and giant guns as being the most important factors in naval warfare, a view which permeated international naval thinking at the turn of the century. The means applied and the results achieved in this decisive naval engagement paved the way for this theory focusing on large ships and giant guns in Japan, and eventually formed the foundation of the doctrinal core of the Imperial Navy and subsequently ruled out any alternatives as means of securing victory at sea. This paper seeks to answer the question of whether or not the development of the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Wing, which began less than five years after the Japanese defeat of Russia, was crippled by a doctrine based on experience gained in the golden days of ships of the battle line. First, the paper will examine the emergence of a conventional Japanese naval battle doctrine, and subsequently answer the question of why the Imperial Navy became a surface-oriented force, and how it planned to engage an enemy and emerge victorious. Second, looking at what factors promoted this conventional doctrine, the paper will pose an answer to the question of why the surface doctrine remained prominent and virtually unchallenged, and, subsequently, how deeply this doctrine permeated officers of the naval air wing.
    [Show full text]
  • William Edward RANGECROFT
    William Edward RANGECROFT Chief Stoker HMS Pathfinder At KES: Born in Camberwell, he was fatherless and came to KES in 1885. His occupation was the band but he was described as “troublesome”. Not suitable for the army when he left in 1888 he joined the Royal Navy as a stoker. Date of Death: 5th September 1914 Place: Drowned North Sea Remembered on Chatham Naval Memorial At the time of his death he had been promoted to Chief Stoker and received a Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. At the beginning of September 1914 Otto Hersing of U-21 ventured to the Firth of Forth, home to the major British naval base at Rosyth. Hersing is known to have penetrated as far as the Carlingnose Battery beneath the Forth Bridge. At one point the periscope was spotted and the battery opened fire but without success. Overnight Hersing withdrew from the Forth, patrolling the coast from the Isle of May southwards. From distance, on the morning of 5 September he observed the SSE course of HMS Pathfinder followed by elements of the 8th Destroyer Flotilla. The destroyers altered course back towards the Isle of May at midday while HMS Pathfinder continued her patrol. Hersing spotted Pathfinder on her return journey from periscope depth at 1530. This time he resolved to make an attack. At 15.43 Otto Hersing fired a single 50 cm (20 in) Type G torpedo. 5 September was a sunny afternoon. At 15.45 lookouts spotted a torpedo wake heading towards the starboard bow at a range of 2,000 yards.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Source and Background Documents D
    Note: Original spelling is retained for this document and all that follow. Appendix 1: Primary source and background documents Document No. 1: Germany's Declaration of War with Russia, August 1, 1914 Presented by the German Ambassador to St. Petersburg The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea. In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany. The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with this demand, and having shown by this refusal that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows: His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.
    [Show full text]